What travelers to the US should know Trump's new entry restrictions
It also includes travel suspensions for Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela nationals.
How could the ban affect travelers who already have tickets
Even for travelers who already have tickets and documents to enter the U.S., the ban is likely to cause issues.
"They're not getting in on Monday unless they qualify for one of the very rare exceptions, which include diplomats, people aligned with NATO, athletes and those with extenuating family circumstances," Michael Wildes, managing partner of Wildes and Weinberg, PC, a law firm that focuses on immigration, told USA TODAY. "They may have a hard time getting in even before Monday."
Wildes said he's advising clients from the affected countries not to travel to the U.S. until further notice.
"I caution them not to travel and then be turned around because that would terminate their visas effectively," he said. "They will develop an immediate adverse history once they're denied admission," which would also make future visa applications and visits much more complicated.
Wildes added that he expects the ban will eventually end up in court, but that process could take weeks or months to play out. He suggested that travelers covered by the ban not try to enter the U.S. in the meantime.
Economic impact of Trump's travel ban
Experts are warning that the ban could also have a significant economic impact as well.
"President Trump's decision to reimpose and expand the blanket and discriminatory nationality-based travel bans of his first term will have massive costs for all Americans," Jeremy Robbins, executive director of the American Immigration Council, said in a statement. "These travel bans do nothing to make us safer or more prosperous: they harm our economy and indiscriminately punish immigrants who otherwise qualify to come to the United States legally."
The organization's statement noted that more than 115,000 green cards were issued to people from Cuba, Venezuela and Haiti alone in 2023.
Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, said in a writeup that the travel ban is unlikely to have a significant impact on national security.
"The government should pursue a rational and evidence-based approach when evaluating the threat posed by foreign nationals. Otherwise, the government is wasting resources and impeding peaceful and voluntary exchange for no purpose," Nowrasteh wrote. "The threat of foreign-born terrorism and crime is manageable and small, especially from the countries facing new bans and restrictions by the administration."
Wildes likewise warned that the ban could have negative economic consequences and affect families whose loved ones are covered by the policy.
"It will have a serious emotional and economic effect on our nation," he said.
Which nationals are barred from entering the US?
The full travel ban applies to nationals of the following 12 countries:
Afghanistan
Burma (Myanmar)
Chad
Republic of the Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Haiti
Iran
Libya
Somalia
Sudan
Yemen
Additionally, partial restrictions are imposed on nationals from:
Burundi
Cuba
Laos
Sierra Leone
Togo
Turkmenistan
Venezuela
Zach Wichter is a travel reporter and writes the Cruising Altitude column for USA TODAY. He is based in New York and you can reach him at zwichter@usatoday.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
40 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump can bar The Associated Press from some White House events for now, appeals court rules
President Donald Trump is free to bar The Associated Press from some White House media events for now, after a U.S. appeals court on Friday paused a lower court ruling mandating that AP journalists be given access. The divided ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily blocks an order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward. The 2-1 ruling was written by U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas. Rao wrote that the lower court injunction 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces' and that the White House was likely to ultimately defeat the Associated Press' lawsuit. The White House and a lawyer for the Associated Press did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with 'any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy.' The AP sued in February after the White House restricted the news outlet's access over its decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage despite Trump renaming the body of water the Gulf of America. The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights. McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints. Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces. 'The Constitution does not prohibit the President from considering a journalist's prior coverage in evaluating how much access he will grant that journalist,' lawyers for the administration said in a court filing. On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets. Other media customers, including local news organizations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets.
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Man Utd ready to win £60m Viktor Gyokeres transfer race as Sir Jim Ratcliffe's brutal cuts start to pay off
Man Utd's U-turn in club finances means they are ready to pip Arsenal for Viktor Gyokeres RED ALERT Man Utd ready to win £60m Viktor Gyokeres transfer race as Sir Jim Ratcliffe's brutal cuts start to pay off Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) MANCHESTER UNITED are ready to win the race for Viktor Gyokeres. The Red Devils recently revealed total operating expenses have dropped by £41.6million to £162.1m in the latest quarterly club accounts after Sir Jim Ratcliffe's brutal cost cutting. 3 Manchester United are ready to win the race for Sporting Lisbon star Viktor Gyokeres 3 Man Utd minority owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe's cuts are leading to a gradual U-turn in finances 3 Man Utd boss Ruben Amorim is now ready to raid his former club for Gyokeres That is despite the cash spent on the Glazers' debt spiralling to a staggering £1.2BILLION. United's gradual U-turn in club finances means they are ready to pip Arsenal to land Sporting Lisbon striker Gyokeres. The Gunners are keen on the former Coventry hitman, 27, but are also chasing RB Leipzig striker Benjamin Sesko. Sweden striker Gyokeres, who scored 54 goals in 52 games for Sporting last season, has an £85m release clause. But it is understood that the Portuguese side would accept a fee closer to £60m this summer. United boss Ruben Amorim is now ready to raid his former club after the boost in their accounts. Yet the Glazers' debt still casts a long shadow over the fallen giants, whose wage bill was down a huge £20m to £71.2m compared with a year ago. United have now spent an astonishing £1.2bn on the debt in 20 years of the Americans' ownership. CASINO SPECIAL - BEST CASINO BONUSES FROM £10 DEPOSITS According to the BBC, £815m in debt interest repayments; £166m in dividends to shareholders; £197m in external net debt repayments and £10m in management and administration fees to the Glazer family companies has left the club since the Glazers bought it in June 2005. Meanwhile, chief executive Omar Berrada warned United must improve after a humiliating season in which they finished 15th in the Premier League and lost the Europa League final against Tottenham. Viktor Gyokeres responds as he is asked if he 'likes London' amid Arsenal transfer links He said: 'We were proud to reach the final of the Europa League but ultimately were disappointed to finish as runner-up in Bilbao. 'We had a difficult season in the Premier League, which fell below our standards, and we have a clear expectation of improvement next season.' United have already agreed to pay £62.5m to land forward Matheus Cunha from Wolves. And they are chasing a £55m deal for Brentford ace Bryan Mbeumo as they attempt to stay within the Prem's Profit and Sustainability Rules. But Amorim will also need to offload a clutch of big-name players from a group including Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho, Alejandro Garnacho, Antony and Casemiro.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
What comes next in the Trump-Musk feud: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Kristen Welker dives into what comes next in the breakup between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Plus, our Capitol Hill team examines the senators who could make or break Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' And Shannon Pettypiece answers this week's reader question on the U.S.-China trade war. Before we dive into all that, two bits of breaking news this Friday afternoon: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man whose erroneous deportation to El Salvador gave way to a protracted battle over due process, has been returned to the U.S. to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee. The Supreme Court allowed members of the Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data. — Adam Wollner What's next in the feud between Trump and Musk? By Kristen Welker The feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump erupted yesterday in an epic clash between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful man — and it's not clear yet where the confrontation will go next. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told me this morning that there are 'no plans' for a phone call between Trump and Musk today, despite at least one report that it was a possibility. But just because there's nothing on the books doesn't mean the two men won't have an impromptu call. After all, Trump has a personal cellphone where he often talks to everyone from world leaders to reporters. And one administration official told me anything can happen, and they'd like to 'de-escalate a very unfortunate situation.' While the White House may be looking to turn down the temperature, some of the president's allies were quick to go after Musk. Steve Bannon, a former Trump White House adviser, told me the president should 'pull every contract associated with Elon Musk' and start major investigations 'immediately.' Bannon also said, 'Thus spake the ketamine,' in a sign that some of Trump's allies are zeroing in on Musk's alleged drug use. (Musk has said he took ketamine to treat depression.) At stake in all of this is the future of Trump's signature legislation, which includes tax cut extensions, an elimination of tax on tips and overtime, and cuts and changes to federal programs including Medicaid and food stamps. Musk has trashed the 'big, beautiful bill,' arguing that it would balloon the country's debt. Sources from the White House and on Capitol Hill have told me that while Musk's opposition might embolden Republican senators who are already opposed to the measure, Musk is not flipping any more votes to the 'no' column at this point. I'm also told that if these senators had to choose between Trump and Musk, they'd choose Trump every time. We'll talk more about the next steps for Trump's domestic policy bill on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday, with exclusive interviews with Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla. and Cory Booker, D-N.J. Behind the scenes: Trump's team is taking the feud seriously: White House aides scrambled into at least two closed-door meetings Thursday to strategize about whether and how to respond to Musk's social media barrage. Vice President JD Vance was with Trump on Thursday when the tweets began and they spoke multiple times in the afternoon, according to a person familiar with the day's events. Trump encouraged Vance to be diplomatic about Musk if asked about him, the person said. Meanwhile, Trump is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla that he purchased in March, according to a senior White House official. By Sahil Kapur, Julie Tsirkin and Frank Thorp V Amid the back-and-forth between Donald Trump and Elon Musk this week, Senate Republican leaders have been juggling a host of competing demands as they prepare to take up — and make changes to — the House-passed 'big, beautiful bill.' They can ultimately afford to lose just three GOP votes on the Senate floor, assuming all Democrats oppose the package as expected. Here are the senators who could make or break the bill: Rand Paul: He's the only Republican senator who has voted against this legislation every step of the way. He has blasted the spike in military spending, the huge increase in deficits and, in particular, the $5 trillion debt limit hike. Paul does support a key part of the package — an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts — but he wants to offset it with trillions of dollars in additional spending cuts, on which the GOP has no hope of finding consensus. Susan Collins: The Maine senator is the sole Republican to represent a state that Democrats consistently win at the presidential level. And she faces re-election this year. Her trajectory has been revealing, from supporting the initial budget resolution to voting against the revised version. A key reason for her opposition? Concerns that the Medicaid cuts would harm low-income and older constituents. Lisa Murkowski: When she voted for the budget blueprint in April that kick-started the process of writing the legislation, the Alaska Republican quickly followed it up with a broad set of grievances that will need to be addressed, or she'll be 'unable to support' the final product. That includes the changes to Medicaid, the cost of the tax cuts and the phaseout of clean energy tax credits that benefit her state. Ron Johnson: The Wisconsin Republican has railed against the bill and its estimated $2.4 trillion contribution to the deficit, insisting he can't vote for it as written. He has slammed the idea of a megabill, calling for breaking it up and limiting the debt ceiling hike. Trump asked him to be 'less negative' during a meeting at the White House this week, Johnson said. ✉️ Mailbag: Who loses in a U.S.-China trade war? Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China. 'Who is in worse shape if the two countries don't trade any longer?' To answer this, we turned to senior policy reporter Shannon Pettypiece, who has been covering the ins and outs of Trump's tariff agenda. Here's her response: Both the U.S. and China have a lot to lose by cutting off trade ties with each other, but in some ways, not as much as they did before the first wave of China tariffs Trump imposed in 2018. Chinese companies have been shifting production offshore, to neighboring countries like Vietnam and even Mexico, while Chinese officials have worked to boost trade with other trading partners, like the European Union. The share of total Chinese exports to the U.S. has dropped to an estimated 14% in 2024 from 19% in 2018. Across China's entire economy, U.S. exports account for 3% of China's gross domestic product, and a sustained U.S. tariff rate of 60% could reduce China's GDP by 2 percentage points, according to Goldman Sachs. In short, that would be bad for China's economy, but not entirely crippling. China's economy isn't on the strongest footing at the moment. Its growth has slowed since the Covid pandemic and the country is grappling with a collapse in its real estate market, which has wiped out the savings for many Chinese. The U.S. has also been working to lessen its dependence on China in recent years, and U.S. companies have increasingly been shifting their manufacturing out of China. China accounts for about 15% of total U.S. imports, down from about 22% in 2018. But the U.S. is still heavily dependent on China in a number of key areas, like rare earth metals crucial for U.S. manufacturing of cars and defense equipment. About a third of U.S. imports from China are in product categories where the vast majority of those items come from China, according to Goldman Sachs. That means, even a temporary halt to shipments from China could lead to supply chain shortages, like those seen during the Covid pandemic. But who blinks first or offers more concessions in a trade standoff could have just as much to do with politics as economics. China removed term limits on President Xi Jinping in 2018, essentially allowing him to remain in power for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. will have midterm elections next year and another presidential contest in 2028.
